Obama can claim victory in Arizona immigration ruling

Updated 10:37 am, Monday, June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc divided in two this morning, allowing President Obama to score a legal victory in the closely watched Arizona immigration case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a nominee of President Reagan, wrote the 5-3 majority opinion that struck down several key provisions of the Arizona immigration law, known as SB 1070. Those provisions designated it a state crime to seek work without a work permit, fail to carry immigration registration documents or allow the arrest an individual suspected of committing a crime that could lead to deportation from the United States.

Kennedy was joined by President George W. Bush's choice for Chief Justice, John Roberts, as well as Democratic selections Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Elena Kagan, who worked on the case during her time as President Obama's Solicitor General, did not take part in the decision.

The three most conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- dissented. An impassioned Alito read extensive excerpts from his dissenting opinion in the court chamber this morning.

The court did not strike down the state's right to permit police to routinely check the immigration status of people stopped for other reasons.

However, today's ruling left open the possibility that this provision could be reviewed later if it is enforced in a discriminatory manner.

Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, said that the decision -- which did not strike down the police enforcement provision -- upholds "the heart of SB1070." She promised that Arizona law enforcement would careful guard the civil rights of suspected illegal immigrants. The governor added that police officers who crossed the line into racially profiling would be punished.

The victory was a big political win for President Obama, who intervened in the case against the Arizona law. It's a setback for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called the Arizona enforcement provisions a "model" for state immigration laws.

Kennedy's ruling declared that "the national government has significant power to regulate immigration" and that Arizona or other states "may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

That was exactly the argument made by the Obama administration during oral arguments on the case.

The decision gave Congress wide latitude to pass legislation to regulate immigration. But Capitol Hill has been deadlocked on comprehensive immigration reform and has failed to act for two presidential administrations.

Conservatives quickly responded to the ruling by saying it was time that Congress acted.

"The Supreme Court's partial ruling on the Arizona immigration law only spotlights the abject failure of the federal government to secure the border," said Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, a candidate for U.S. Senate. "Today's decision reinforces the need for conservatives in Congress to once and for all quit talking and secure the border."

Not all liberals were happy with the decision. Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, said the high court action painted a "bulls-eye" on the backs of Latinos.

Krystal Gomez, Advocacy and Policy Counsel in the Texas ACLU's Brownsville office, said that the willingness of the justices to permit some enforcement provisions to take effect showed that the court was "out of touch" with the American people.

"The truth is 'show me your papers' laws, harm citizens and noncitizens alike," Gomez said. "It's impossible to enforce these laws without racial profiling, as people will be targeted and detained based on how they look or sound."

The Arizona case drew some clear guidelines for how states can -- and can't -- deal with the hot-button political issue of immigration.

"First, the states are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance," Kennedy wrote. "Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law."

Some parts of the Arizona law were upheld by lower courts and not challenged by the Obama administration, including the state's right to outlaw "sanctuary cities." Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposed sanctuary city legislation in the last session of the Texas Legislature.